6
\$\begingroup\$

I recently made a substantial edit to this answer to the Q&A "Which spells benefit from the Spell Sniper feat?", that would make a good dupe target.

The help page on editing says:

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it.

I feel the edit I made is in line with those, along with covering a mistake in the original post (i.e. there are exceptions).

However previous Q&As on meta (Editing someone else's answer vs. commenting, and When editing, how drastic is too drastic?) have been inconclusive, and disagree on whether to add a comment or make an edit. The sole answer to the first Q&A says, in part:

Comment

When you think the answer is mostly good but you wish it would address an additional point

While mxyzplk's answer to the second Q&A says:

[...] edits shouldn't change the nature of the answer - if you're changing a yes to a no, that's bad [...] We edit to add info, to add clarification from comments so comments can be deleted, to copyedit... Whatever seems like it's improving the answer, while maintaining the point of the answer.

Did my edit to cover edge cases go too far, based on the above?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

Your edit did go too far

Because the answer, from your point of view1, is (partially) wrong, and you tried making it right. That is best done by submitting a new answer, one that is right, and backing it up accordingly. If you think the answer is mostly right but there is one point you disagree with (i.e., you think it is a mistake), it's best left as a comment. If the original poster doesn't change it (either because they left the site or because they disagree), you can, again, submit a new answer, if you consider that the mistake is harmful enough that shouldn't go unaddressed.

Editing is for clarifying things that are already in the answer. Your edit was something completely new to the answer, i.e.,

When you think the answer is mostly good but you wish it would address an additional point


1 I'm not even sure it is, in fact, wrong. Spell Sniper doesn't require the attack roll to be part of casting the spell. On the other hand, there is the distinction between requiring you to make the attack and allowing you to make it.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Agreed. I would have rejected it in a review queue, or reverted it if the edit were to one of my answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Novak Jul 23 at 3:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Put a different way, the original author of the answer has a right to be wrong (I'm talking in a general sense here, not questioning the correctness of that specific answer). Edits aren't meant to correct their argument or conclusion, just to correct their spelling or wrong page number or formatting, etc. Submitting a new answer is definitely the way to go. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Jul 24 at 8:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Accepted, and I've posted a new answer to the question. \$\endgroup\$ – AncientSwordRage Aug 3 at 11:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .